The Belt Railway Company of Chicago v. International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers - Transportation Division

Filing 44

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Signed by the Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt on 3/26/2024. Emailed notice. (cdh, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
The Belt Railway Company of Chicago,
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,

Case No. 24 C 1395

v.

Hon. LaShonda A. Hunt

International Association of Sheet Metal, Air,
Rail, and Transportation Workers,
Transportation Division,
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant The Belt Railway Company of Chicago (“Belt Railway”) and
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and
Transportation Workers, Transportation Division (“SMART-TD”) each filed actions challenging
Belt Railway’s recent change to “hump operations” that involved assigning each of the two helpers
on a “hump crew” to their own locomotive instead of the same locomotive, and SMART-TD’s
right to strike in response to the change. Currently pending before the Court are the parties’ crossmotions for preliminary injunction. Resolution of this matter turns on whether Belt Railway’s new
operational policy constitutes a “minor” or “major” dispute for purposes of the Railway Labor Act.
Following expedited briefing and an evidentiary hearing, the Court concludes that, for the reasons
stated below, this is a minor dispute and, as such, SMART-TD may not strike or engage in other
self-help measures pending arbitration of the matter. Accordingly, Belt Railway’s motion [13] is
granted and SMART-TD’s motion [29] is denied.

1

BACKGROUND
The Court presumes familiarity with the procedural history of this case as set forth in the
March 7, 2024 order extending the initial status quo temporary restraining order. (Dkt. 39). The
parties presented evidence pertaining to their fully briefed motions for preliminary injunction on
March 19, 2024. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court took the motions under advisement
and extended the TRO pending their adjudication. (Dkt. 41). The following facts are gleaned from
the relevant filings, evidence, and witness testimony.
Belt Railway is a rail carrier headquartered in Illinois that operates the largest intermediate
switching terminal railroad in the United States. SMART-TD is a national labor union that
represents train service employees, including approximately 120-130 workers employed by Belt
Railway, by negotiating and policing collective bargaining agreements.
Belt Railway and SMART-TD are parties to several collective bargaining agreements that
date back decades. Belt Railway primarily relies on two agreements in this case: the Memorandum
of Agreement dated February 14, 1961, and the Crew-Consist Agreement dated April 13, 1990.
(JX6; JX1). 1 The 1961 Agreement sets forth rules for when management is or is not required to
recognize certain “normal routines of work,” along with the notice requirements for any changes
to normal routines of work. (JX6 §§ 2, 3, 7). The 1990 Crew-Consist Agreement governs the
staffing of train service employees on various types of crews, including the hump crews at issue
in this case. (JX1).

1
Unless otherwise noted, all “JX” references are to the Joint Exhibits submitted by the parties. Typically, the
Court requires parties to formally move for admission of exhibits into evidence at the end of a hearing or trial. Although
the Court forgot to raise that issue here (and the parties presumably assumed it was unnecessary for joint exhibits),
every unopposed exhibit presented to a witness during the hearing would have been accepted into evidence. Therefore,
all such exhibits are deemed part of the record.

2

Under the 1990 Crew-Consist Agreement, there are three types of hump crews: the East
Hump Crew, the West Hump Crew, and the Extra Hump Crew. In pertinent part, the agreement
provides as follows:
The East Hump Crew will consist of a hump conductor and two
helpers. The West Hump Crew will also consist of a hump conductor
and two helpers. When an “Extra Hump Crew” is required to assist
humping operations on either side of the hump, the crew will consist
of two helper positions.
***
Under no circumstances will employees be required to operate with
less than the required crew consist specified in this Agreement, nor
will they be censured or disciplined in any manner for refusal to do
so.
(JX1 art. 3(d) & 5(a)).
Belt Railway operates a “hump yard” where incoming trains are broken down and
assembled into new outgoing trains. Carrier locomotives (train cars with engines) bring incoming
trains to Belt Railway and leave them in a receiving yard. A Belt Railway locomotive attaches to
an incoming train and moves it along the tracks up a small hill called the “hump.” At the top of the
hump, pins connecting the train cars are pulled manually and the separated train cars roll down
different tracks using gravity and then stop using an automated braking system in a classification
yard. New outgoing trains are assembled there and then moved to a departure yard to await pick
up by a carrier locomotive. Trains arrive and depart the hump yard from the East and the West, so
there are receiving, classification, and departure yards on both the East and West side of the hump.
The hump yard operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.
Groups of employees that work in the hump yard are referred to as “hump crews.” There
are three shifts each day. Hump crews—consisting of a conductor and two helpers—work on each
side of the hump and are designated as East and West Hump Crews. The East and West hump

3

conductors work in a command center, changing switches remotely to direct train cars onto
different tracks, while the East and West helpers work in the hump yard. When an Extra Hump
Crew is required on either the East or West side of the hump, it also has two helpers. Thus, at
minimum staffing, there would be a total of six employees, made up of one conductor and two
helpers on the East Hump Crew and the same on the West Hump Crew. At maximum staffing,
when Extra Hump Crews are required on both sides of the hump, there would be a total of ten
employees, made up of the original six on the East and West Hump Crews, and an additional four
helpers, two on each side of the hump.
The two helpers on each hump crew have always been assigned to a single locomotive.
One helper would work at the hump, controlling the locomotive with a remote control operation
(“RCO”) box and pulling the pins that connect the cars so that they roll down the tracks to the
classification yard. The second helper would work in the cab of the locomotive, essentially on
standby to take control of the locomotive with an RCO box as needed.
During hump operations, trains sometimes need to be stopped and reversed. When that
happens, the helper at the hump would “pitch” (i.e., give) control of the locomotive to the helper
in the cab of the locomotive. According to Stel Paras, the general chairperson of SMART-TD’s
local committee, the reason control would be pitched from one helper to the other in those
situations is that the person in control of the locomotive must be able to see directly in front of the
train in the direction that it is traveling to make sure no one is in the way. This practice is referred
to in the trade as “protecting the point.” Both sides agree that federal regulations require some sort
of visual confirmation that there is no one in front of a locomotive before it is moved in that
direction. Belt Railway’s president and general manager, Percy Fields, explained that both the
conductor and the helper at the hump have access to live video from over 200 cameras positioned

4

around the yard so that they can remotely check to see if there is anyone in front of the train before
moving it. In the event that no helper is in the cab and no camera covers the area in front of the
train, the conductor, the helper at the hump, or another worker could be sent to check in person.
According to Mr. Fields, this procedure would comply with applicable federal regulations.
On Friday, February 16, 2024, Belt Railway notified SMART-TD that there would be a
change in hump operations effective Tuesday, February 20, 2024. Specifically, Belt Railway would
be eliminating the Extra Hump Crews and assigning each helper on the East and West Hump Crews
to his or her own locomotive. Under the new operation there would be six total workers, three on
each side of the hump: a conductor in the command center; one helper controlling one locomotive
with an RCO box; and the other helper controlling a second locomotive with an RCO box.
SMART-TD immediately responded to Belt Railway with a “non-acquiescence letter,” vehemently
disagreeing with the change and asking by what authority Belt Railway purported to act. (JX4).
Belt Railway replied in writing the following day explaining the basis for its proposed actions and
seeking confirmation that SMART-TD would handle the matter as a minor dispute (i.e., that there
would be no strike). (JX5).
In the following days, the parties’ representatives exchanged calls. SMART-TD informed
Belt Railway that there would be a poll vote about whether to strike over the hump operation
changes at a monthly member meeting scheduled to take place the evening of February 20, 2024.
When asked by Belt Railway for assurances that SMART-TD would not strike, SMART-TD
confirmed only that the president of the organization would need to authorize a strike and the poll
vote itself could not grant such authority. Belt Railway’s director of labor relations, Christopher
Steinway, explained that he understood SMART-TD’s non-acquiescence letter to mean that
SMART-TD would handle the matter as a major dispute and potentially strike if the changes were

5

implemented. SMART-TD’s witnesses explained that such letters were commonplace and that
there had not been a strike at Belt Railway since 1968. Brent Leonard, Smart-TD’s vice president,
confirmed during his testimony that SMART-TD would not strike if the Court finds that this
dispute is minor.
The crux of the dispute over the change to hump operations stems from the parties’
respective understandings of the 1961 and 1990 Agreements. Belt Railway views Section 3 of the
1961 Agreement as a source of authority to change the “normal routine of work” when it “is not
apparent, not necessary, or does not exist[.]” (JX6 § 3). Under this provision, Belt Railway
maintains that it is entitled to change the normal routine of work for helpers on the East and West
Hump Crews by splitting them up to work on separate locomotives, as the old “normal routine of
work” is no longer necessary due to advances in technology that allow workers to control and
monitor trains remotely. Belt Railway then reads Section 3(d) of the 1990 Crew Consist Agreement
to require only two helpers on the East and West Hump Crews and points out that there is no
express language requiring the helpers to work on the same locomotive or defining “crew” in such
a way. SMART-TD’s representatives adamantly disagree with Belt Railway’s position, arguing that
the word “crew” has long-standing use in the railway industry to mean that employees on the same
crew work together as a unit on the same locomotive. Under SMART-TD’s reading of Section 3(d),
there would be no need for express language on that point because the definition of the word
“crew” necessarily means that the helpers would work as a unit on the same locomotive.
Belt Railway insists that management has regularly exercised discretion to adjust work
assignments for employees represented by SMART-TD. Specifically, Belt Railway claims that it
has routinely changed job assignments by eliminating unnecessary positions in a variety of
contexts. For example, over the past 15 years, Belt Railway has reduced “pulldown” and utility

6

assignments, abolished the hump yardmaster and reallocated the duties of that position, installed
remote-controlled switches and reassigned related work, and assigned “mixed-practice” work.
While Belt Railway admits that it has generally staffed the hump yard with an East Hump Crew, a
West Hump Crew, and two Extra Hump Crews, Belt Railway has also assigned only one Extra
Hump Crew on one side of the hump on many occasions, including in the weeks leading up to the
disputed change. SMART-TD concedes that the Extra Hump Crew has been eliminated in the past
when there was a low volume of cars to process but contends that the reduction always resulted in
the elimination of two helpers working on a single locomotive and never resulted in only two
helpers working separately on their own locomotives. Nevertheless, according to Mr. Steinway,
“[t]here was never any mutual intent to prescribe a ‘per-train’ helper complement, especially when
the relevant agreement speaks in terms of a minimum crew for the location.” (JX54 ¶ 16).
The parties have been engaged in negotiations about crew size for years. In past bargaining
rounds, Belt Railway proposed broad discretion to determine crew size depending on its business
needs. SMART-TD has opposed such discretion but has been willing to accept some changes in
crew size in exchange for other accommodations. In the prior three rounds of bargaining (2009,
2014, and 2019), the parties have been unable to reach resolution on the issue. Mr. Steinway
testified that Belt Railway has always sought broad discretion to permit management to determine
the size of various crews, including but not limited to hump crews. But Belt Railway insists that it
has never sought to bargain about adjusting the workflow of the two helpers on a hump crew
because the operative agreements have always provided the discretion to implement the change at
issue. SMART-TD’s representatives recall the bargaining history quite differently. According to
Mr. Paras and John Lesniewski, former vice president of SMART-TD, the parties expressly and

7

specifically discussed changes to the size of the hump crews, including reduction to a one-person
train crew, in prior rounds of bargaining. (JX41, JXS 43-48).
Representatives from both parties testified about the actual and potential ramifications of
this dispute. For as long as Belt Railway is prohibited from implementing changes to the hump
operations, Mr. Steinway and Mr. Fields claim that the carrier will lose the opportunity for revenue
of approximately $30,000 per day due to increased productivity, incur extra labor costs of $7,500
per day as a result of being unable to reassign hump crew helpers to other positions and then having
to hire new employees to fill those positions, and potential attorney’s fees of up to $100,000 to file
an appeal, none of which are recoverable through arbitration if Belt Railway ultimately prevails.
As a result, if Belt Railway is prohibited from implementing the change until this dispute is
resolved, it asks that SMART-TD be ordered to post a bond of $500,000. Furthermore, Belt
Railway’s witnesses testified that the effects of a strike at their facility would be far-reaching and
immense. Belt Railway is the largest intermediate switching terminal in the country, so any work
stoppage would have massive consequences for the national rail network, causing huge financial
consequences for shippers who are under contract to deliver goods within a specific time frame
and jeopardizing the public due to delays in the shipment of chemicals necessary for modern life,
including supplying clean drinking water.
On the other hand, SMART-TD’s witnesses spoke of the effects that changes in work
assignments could have on its members. Some of those effects are quantifiable, for example, if an
employee is assigned to a different position that pays less, the difference in compensation can
easily be calculated. Calculating those potential losses gets more complicated as time goes on and
as more workers are affected, but it is still possible and there is a formal process for making those
claims. Still, because any workers compensated under that scheme would be paid at the rate in

8

effect at the time of the loss and not any interest, SMART-TD claims that they can never truly be
made whole financially. As to nonquantifiable losses, SMART-TD’s witnesses discussed the
potential consequences that delayed payment of wages can have on a person’s life, including
inability to pay bills and other ripple effects. In the end, however, SMART-TD agreed that it would
not strike if the Court found that the dispute is minor. In addition, SMART-TD sought only a
nominal bond amount in the event that either party is enjoined from its desired action.
Having considered the evidence, testimony, arguments, and applicable authority, the Court
is now ready to rule.
LEGAL STANDARD
To obtain a preliminary injunction, a movant must demonstrate: (1) a likelihood of success
on the merits; (2) irreparable harm; and (3) inadequacy of traditional legal remedies. Courthouse
News Serv. v. Brown, 908 F.3d 1063, 1068 (7th Cir. 2018); Northeast Ill. Reg’l Commuter Rail
Corp. v. Int’l Ass’n of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transp. Workers - Transp. Div., 578 F. Supp. 3d
985, 996 (N.D. Ill. 2022). If the movant successfully demonstrates all three requirements, the
analysis continues to the “balancing phase.” Northeast, 578 F. Supp. 3d at 996. This involves
considering “the harm the plaintiff will suffer without an injunction against the harm the defendant
will suffer with one.” Courthouse, 908 F.3d at 1068. To make the assessment, a sliding scale is
used: the more likely the movant is to win, the less heavily the balance needs to weigh in the
movant’s favor and vice versa. Northeast, 578 F. Supp. 3d at 996. As a final consideration, the
court must evaluate the impact of a preliminary injunction on non-parties and the public generally.
Id.

9

DISCUSSION
I.

Likelihood of Success: “Major” or “Minor” Dispute
The Railway Labor Act (RLA), 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., serves to, among other things,

“avoid any interruption to commerce or to the operation of any carrier engaged therein . . . provide
for the prompt and orderly settlement of all disputes concerning rates of pay, rules, or working
conditions . . . [and] provide for the prompt and orderly settlement of all disputes growing out of
grievances or out of the interpretation or application of agreements covering rates of pay, rules, or
working conditions.” 45 U.S.C. § 151(a). The RLA establishes specific procedures for addressing
“major” and “minor” disputes between parties. While the RLA does not use the terms “major” or
“minor,” nor articulate a standard to distinguish between them, these terms have emerged from
“the vocabulary of rail management and rail labor.” Consol. Rail Corp. v. Ry. Lab. Execs.’ Ass’n,
491 U.S. 229, 302 (1989) (hereinafter “Conrail”). A “major” dispute is one in which a party is
seeking to create contractual rights. Id. The RLA addresses “major” disputes in 45 U.S.C. §§ 152
Seventh and 156. Section 152 Seventh of the RLA forbids changes in “the rates of pay, rules, or
working conditions of its employees, as a class, as embodied in agreements except in the manner
prescribed in such agreements or in section 156 of this title.” 45 U.S.C. § 152 Seventh. Section 156
sets out the procedures a carrier must follow when it wants to implement a major change, which
include mandatory bargaining and mediation processes, along with a requirement that the parties
maintain the “status quo” until resolution. Conrail, 491 U.S. at 302. It is only after exhaustion of
these processes that a strike or other forms of economic self-help may be used if no agreement has
been reached. Id. at 303.
On the contrary, a “minor” dispute is one in which a party seeks to enforce a preexisting
contractual right. Id. at 302. “Minor” disputes are codified at 45 U.S.C. §§ 152 Sixth and 156
First(i). Specifically, § 152 Sixth defines these disputes as “arising out of grievances or out of the
10

interpretation or application of agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, or working conditions.”
45 U.S.C. § 152 Sixth. If a dispute is minor, the parties are required to engage in mandatory,
binding arbitration before the National Railroad Adjustment Board and, in the meantime, the
carrier may implement the proposed change. Conrail, 491 U.S. at 303-04. A strike by a union over
a minor dispute is unlawful. A dispute is considered minor if it is not frivolous or obviously
insubstantial and can arguably be justified. Id. at 306-07. The burden to show that a dispute is
minor is light. Id. at 307. Additionally, because the RLA seeks to avoid disruptions to the nation’s
railways, “in making the choice between major and minor, there is a large thumb on the scale in
favor of minor, and hence arbitration.” Brotherhood of Locomotive Eng’rs & Trainmen v. Union
Pac. R.R. Co., 879 F.3d 754, 758 (7th Cir. 2017).
The role of federal courts in this situation is limited to determining whether the dispute is
major or minor so that it may be adjudicated through the proper channels as envisioned by the
RLA. Id. at 757. The parties each present compelling arguments about the propriety of Belt
Railway’s operational change in light of the contractual language, past practices of the parties, and
their prior bargaining history. After careful consideration, the Court concludes that this dispute is
properly classified as minor.
A. Contractual Language
First, as discussed supra, the parties present differing interpretations of the applicable
contractual language. Pointing to the 1990 Crew-Consist Agreement, Belt Railway focuses on the
absence of an explicit requirement that two helpers work on the same locomotive, while SMARTTD emphasizes the fact that “crew” is a term defined in the railway industry to refer to two helpers
working together as a unit on the same locomotive. For a dispute to be deemed minor, Belt Railway
need only articulate an argument that is not frivolous or obviously insubstantial and can arguably

11

be justified. Conrail, 491 U.S. at 306-07. “Better-than-frivolous is a low bar, but a bar
nonetheless.” Brotherhood of Locomotive Eng’rs, 879 F.3d at 758.
The Court believes that Belt Railway has met this standard. Neither the 1961 Agreement
nor the 1990 Crew-Consist Agreement contain language expressly providing that the two helpers
on a hump crew must be assigned to the same locomotive, let alone that they can’t be split up to
each work on a separate locomotive. As such, Belt Railway has offered an arguably justified
reading that the 1990 Crew-Consist Agreement focuses on the location of the crews—one East
Hump Crew and one West Hump Crew—rather than the number of locomotives to which crew
members may be assigned. Still, the Court questions whether Belt Railway’s sudden operational
change just as the parties are beginning the bargaining process flies in the face of the spirit of the
current agreements. The uncontested testimony of SMART-TD’s representatives was that “crew”
in the railway industry signifies a two-person team on a single locomotive. However, the fact that
each party offers a plausible interpretation does not render Belt Railway’s interpretation frivolous.
Nat’l Ry. Lab. Conf. v. Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 830 F.2d 741, 749 (7th
Cir. 1987). In short, because nothing in the 1990 Crew-Consist Agreement defines the word “crew”
to mean “workers per train” as SMART-TD suggests, Belt Railway’s geographic location
interpretation is at least plausible. It may be that the word “crew” carries the meaning claimed by
SMART-TD, but that is an issue for an arbiter to decide on a more developed record.
B. Past Practices
It is undisputed that, for decades, each “hump crew” at Belt Railway has consisted of two
helpers working on the same locomotive as a unit. Belt Railway concedes this point but contends
this is a vestige of pre-RCO operations. According to Belt Railway, it has regularly exercised its
discretion to adjust a variety of work assignments in the past, and the fact that it chose not to assign

12

hump crew helpers to separate locomotives in the past does not mean it lacked the discretion to do
so. Again, SMART-TD urges the Court to find this evidence of Belt Railway’s past practice
persuasive.
SMART-TD is correct that past practices are instructive to the major or minor question, as
they may be considered to form part of the agreement despite their absence from the written
agreement. See, e.g., BLET GCA UP v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 988 F.3d 409, 413-14 (7th Cir. 2021)
(finding that even though there was no contractual text that expressly authorized a railroad to make
changes to attendance policy, the course of dealing for over twenty years provided “solid ground”
for railroad to consider dispute to be minor). “[T]he major-minor dichotomy treats interpretation
or application of express and implied contractual terms indistinguishably. Thus, the relevant terms
of an agreement are not only those that are written down; they also include the parties’ practice,
usage, and custom as they carry out their agreement.” Brotherhood of Locomotive Eng’rs, 879 F.3d
at 758. Nevertheless, to be considered part of an agreement, past practices cannot contradict the
text of the agreement. Chi. & N. W. Transp. Co. v. Ry Lab. Execs. Ass’n., 855 F.2d 1277, 1283 (7th
Cir. 1988).
In Chi. & N.W. Transp., the Seventh Circuit addressed whether the sale of a segment of a
railroad track constituted a major or minor dispute pursuant to the parties’ collective bargaining
agreement. 855 F.2d at 1277. For twenty years before the sale at issue, the railway had sold or
abandoned unprofitable segments of its rail tracks, adversely affecting the jobs of many employees
represented by various unions. Id. at 1279. The railway argued that the dispute was minor because
not only did the collective bargaining agreements authorize the sale of the track, but “it ha[d] for
some twenty years taken similar actions . . . without objection . . . and without a demand from the
unions that the § 6 RLA procedures be initiated.” Id. at 1284. The Seventh Circuit held that

13

“because nothing in the record indicate[d] that the purported body of past practice relied on by [the
railway was] inconsistent with the express provisions of the [collective bargaining] agreements,
[the railway’s argument could not] be rejected out of hand.” Id. at 1285. Although the railway made
arguments that were “subject to challenge, they [were] at least plausible.” Id.
Likewise, Belt Railway has presented a nonfrivolous argument that its past practices
support this exercise of discretion under the operative agreements. Mr. Steinway testified that Belt
Railway has a long history of eliminating positions that it deems unnecessary as well as altering
the number of workers on the hump (i.e., by choosing to operate without one or both of the Extra
Hump Crews). Although Mr. Paras contends that Belt Railway’s arguments of past practice are
without merit because they do not involve the removal of a crew member, the Court cannot say
that Belt Railway’s significant change to the normal routine of work for hump crews was not
allowed. Again, the Court recognizes that the Belt Railway’s arguments here, like the railway’s
arguments in Chi. & N.W. Transp., supra, are certainly subject to challenge. But the jurisdiction of
this Court is limited to deciding if SMART-TD must assert those objections through the procedures
mandated by the RLA for minor disputes.
SMART-TD relies on Detroit & Toledo Shore Line R.R. Co. v. United Transp. Union
(“Shore Line”), in arguing that having two helpers work on a single locomotive is a working
condition that, as a consistent past practice, has become part of the parties’ agreement. However,
SMART-TD’s reliance on Shore Line is misplaced. In Shore Line, the parties disputed the working
conditions to be maintained to continue the “status quo” pending resolution of a major dispute.
396 U.S. 142, 143 (1969) (emphasis added). Put another way, that case considered issues that come
into play only if this Court has determined that the dispute is major, which as discussed, it is not.
Shore Line is therefore inapplicable.

14

C. Prior Bargaining
Finally, the parties have offered contradictory explanations of their history in bargaining
over the size of hump crews. Belt Railway contends that it has negotiated for broad discretion to
control crew size, rather than specifically adjusting the hump crew size. SMART-TD claims that
the parties have expressly and specifically discussed this exact topic at the bargaining table.
SMART-TD argues that such prior negotiations demonstrate that Belt Railway knows it cannot
make this change without having to bargain for it (in other words, this change is major), which
would render Belt Railway’s argument frivolous.
The Seventh Circuit has cautioned that a railroad may not “lie its way to arbitration.”
Brotherhood of Locomotive Eng’rs, 879 F.3d at 758. Thus, if SMART-TD “were to produce
evidence that foreclosed [Belt Railway’s] interpretation, it might succeed in showing that the
railroad’s position is obviously insubstantial.” Id. SMART-TD cites Flight Options, LLC v. Int’l
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Loc. 1108, in support of its argument that Belt Railway’s present
arguments regarding their reading of the agreements and past practices are made in bad faith, as
the parties have negotiated this very topic numerous times in the past. 863 F.3d 529, 539 (6th Cir.
2017). Indeed, Flight Options quotes Conrail in stating that an argument made in bad faith cannot
arguably justify a party’s interpretation of the contractual language. Id. But the Court is not
convinced that SMART-TD has produced such evidence. The admitted exhibits and testimony
establish that prior bargaining efforts involved Belt Railway’s attempts to reduce hump crews from
three total crew members to two crew members, which is distinct from the issue of assigning two
hump crew helpers to their own locomotives.
SMART-TD relies on two additional cases to show that Belt Railway is aware that changes
to the hump crew operations must be bargained for, but those too are nonstarters. Wheeling & Lake

15

Erie Ry. Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Eng’rs & Trainmen, involved a carrier’s attempt to
eliminate a provision of the parties’ agreement related to crew consist, “so that the Railroad would
not have to assign a union conductor to each train.” 789 F.3d 681, 685 (6th Cir. 2015). Section 6
notices (i.e., notices required under the RLA to negotiate major changes) were served numerous
times by the carrier in an attempt to eliminate the contractual provision at issue, and the parties
“engaged in direct bargaining over both parties’ Section 6 notices on numerous occasions without
success.” Id. at 686. The Sixth Circuit held that the explicit contractual language supported the
union’s position and that, “[b]y serving a Section 6 notice on the union in 2003, the Railroad
acknowledged the RLA requirement that it negotiate with the union if it wishes to revise or remove
the crew consist provision from the . . . Agreement.” Id. at 693. Two critical factual distinctions
exist between Wheeling and the instant case. First, the Court has already determined that Belt
Railway’s argument regarding contractual language is not frivolous or obviously insubstantial.
Second, the Section 6 notices issued by Belt Railway involved changes to its discretion to adjust
crew size, rather than the reallocation of helpers to assign one helper per train while maintaining
the same crew size. In contrast, in Wheeling, the Section 6 notices directly correlated with the
changes the carrier later made absent proper bargaining procedures.
Similarly, SMART-TD cites Burlington N. R.R. Co. v. United Transp. Union for the same
proposition—namely, the service of Section 6 notices shows that this is a major dispute. In
Burlington, the collective bargaining agreements required crews “consisting of one engineer, one
conductor and one or two brakemen.” 862 F.2d 1266, 1269 (7th Cir. 1988). For cost efficiency, the
carrier granted its subsidiary “trackage rights,” and the parties disagreed about whether the
granting of such rights violated the collective bargaining agreement. Id. at 1270. The carrier first
negotiated with the union over the proposed trackage rights, and the Seventh Circuit found,

16

therefore, that the carrier’s “own conduct undermine[d] its position.” Id. at 1274. As with
Wheeling, Burlington is distinguishable in that the contractual language of the 1961 Agreement
and 1990 Crew-Consist Agreement make Belt Railway’s position arguably justified and the
assignment of the two-person hump crew helpers to his/her own locomotive has never been on the
bargaining table. Accordingly, this dispute is indeed minor.
II.

Irreparable Harm and Inadequacy of Traditional Remedies
Finding that Belt Railway has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, the Court

next considers whether either party will suffer irreparable harm if injunctive relief is not granted
in its favor. Harm is irreparable if legal remedies are inadequate to cure it. Life Spine, Inc. v. Aegis
Spine, Inc., 8 F.4th 531, 545 (7th Cir. 2021). “Inadequate does not mean wholly ineffectual; rather,
the remedy must be seriously deficient as compared to the harm suffered.” Id. (internal quotations
omitted).
Here, Belt Railway argues that it will suffer irreparable harm if it is prohibited from
implementing these changes to hump operations. Specifically, Belt Railway claims that it will lose
the opportunity to earn approximately $30,000 in additional revenue per day and incur extra labor
costs of $7,500 per day and significant attorney’s fees associated with a potential appeal. Notably,
Belt Railway contends that lost revenue or costs incurred would not be recoverable in arbitration.
Additionally, Belt Railway contends that the effects of a strike would cause massive consequences
for the national rail network, Belt Railway’s customers, and the general public. SMART-TD labels
Belt Railway’s arguments of irreparable harm as “scare tactics,” and highlights the fact that Belt
Railway has failed to demonstrate an imminent threat of a strike, especially in light of the fact that
there has been no strike at Belt Railway since 1968.

17

SMART-TD further argues that this is a major dispute; thus, no finding of irreparable injury
is necessary. Nonetheless, SMART-TD claims that it will suffer irreparable injury if Belt Railway
is permitted to implement the new hump crew operations. According to SMART-TD, “such a
unilateral change in working conditions would effectively upset SMART-TD’s bargaining leverage
and ability to reach a fair settlement. . . . Moreover, left undeterred, [Belt Railway] may well be
encouraged to further chip away at the parties’ negotiated agreement on crew size one position and
one creative argument at a time.” (SMART-TD Mem. at 26.)
SMART-TD offered testimony that the proposed changes in work assignments would have
far-reaching negative consequences for its members. Specifically, SMART-TD witnesses testified
that full compensation may be delayed and employees may lose their jobs, resulting in a failure to
make mortgage and car payments, potential divorce proceedings as a result of such hardship, and
loss of medical insurance. Additionally, according to SMART-TD, because no interest is paid on
any relief awarded by an arbitration board, the employees will never be made whole financially.
In response, Belt Railway offered testimony from John Hennecke, former director of labor
relations for the National Railway Labor Conference, to demonstrate that SMART-TD could and
likely would file claims on behalf of any employee that it felt was adversely affected by Belt
Railway’s changes to the hump operations and those employees could be made whole by an award
from the arbitration board.
Based on these facts, Belt Railway has demonstrated that it will suffer irreparable harm if
it is prohibited from implementing the changes to the hump operations or SMART-TD is allowed
to engage in work stoppage. Courts in the past have recognized the unique difficulties inherent in
railway strikes, which is that railways, unlike manufacturers, cannot increase production before
and/or after a strike to recoup lost profits. Chi. & N.W. Transp. Co., 908 F.2d at 148. Moreover, the

18

parties do not dispute that Belt Railway would be unable to recover any loss profits or costs
incurred while waiting for an arbitration decision.
The Court is not convinced that SMART-TD will suffer any irreparable harm. It is true that
a damage remedy may be inadequate where an employer’s action threatens a permanent loss of
jobs. See Loc. Lodge No. 1266, Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO v.
Panoramic Corp., 668 F.2d 276, 286 (7th Cir. 1981) (finding that monetary compensation would
not be an appropriate remedy where sale of corporate assets in alleged violation of collective
bargaining agreement would result in immediate loss of employment for 113 employees
represented by the union). However, that is not the case here. Mr. Steinway explained that Belt
Railway does not anticipate any layoffs pursuant to these staffing changes. Rather, the impact will
be felt in hiring practices long term. Thus, SMART-TD’s contention that employees may lose their
jobs and any snowball effects resulting from such job loss are purely speculative, and a party
“cannot obtain a preliminary injunction by speculating about hypothetical future injuries.” E. St.
Louis Laborers’ Loc. 100 v. Bellon Wrecking & Salvage Co., 414 F.3d 700, 706 (7th Cir. 2005).
SMART-TD’s argument that employees cannot be made whole through monetary relief also fails.
Monetary relief in the form of backpay is provided to make litigants whole on a daily basis in
courts across the country. See, e.g., Ne. Illinois Reg’l Commuter Rail Corp. v. Int’l Ass’n of Sheet
Metal, Air, Rail, & Transp. Workers - Transp. Div., 578 F. Supp. 3d 985, 997 (N.D. Ill. 2022)
(finding that union failed to meet irreparable harm requirement and explaining that if adjustment
board disagreed with court’s holding that dispute was minor, backpay would be available and
would make employee whole).

19

III.

Balance of Harms

Finally, when balancing the potential harm to both Belt Railway and SMART-TD, the
scales tip in favor of Belt Railway. The necessity of efficient and continuous rail traffic in the
United States cannot be overstated. Indeed, the Railway Labor Act was undoubtedly passed with
an eye towards keeping the rails moving smoothly when possible. See, e.g., Brotherhood of
Locomotive Eng’rs, 879 F.3d at 755, 758 (“No one wants to see the nation’s transportation network
brought to a standstill because of labor conflict. The RLA therefore is designed to substitute
bargaining, mediation, and arbitration for strikes;” “A primary goal of the RLA is to avoid
disruptions to commercial use of the railways.”). On the other hand, the Court sees no reason why
SMART-TD and its members cannot be made whole with monetary relief in the event the National
Railroad Adjustment Board finds that the proposed change to hump operations should not have
been implemented.
IV.

Bond
Upon granting a motion for preliminary injunction, the Court is required to order a bond

pursuant to Rule 65(c). Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c). However, at the end of the March 19 hearing, both
parties suggested that the Court need not set a bond if a decision on the merits were issued. The
Court agrees. Resolution of their claims alleviates the need for any bond. Accordingly, the Clerk
is directed, forthwith, to release the bonds of $1,000 previously posted by both parties in
connection with entry of the TRO.
V.

Merits Determination
On March 20, 2024, Belt Railway filed its Answer to SMART-TD’s Verified Counterclaim.

(Dkt. 42). Because Belt Railway and SMART-TD have each responded to the complaint and
counterclaim filed by the other, it is appropriate for the Court to now issue a decision on the merits.

20

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)(2), “the hearing for a preliminary injunction
can be consolidated with the trial on the merits before or after the commencement of the hearing
for a preliminary injunction.” Am. Train Dispatchers Dep’t of Int’l Bhd. of Locomotive Eng’rs v.
Fort Smith R.R. Co., 121 F.3d 267, 269-70 (7th Cir. 1997) (finding that trial court did not abuse its
discretion in consolidating preliminary injunction hearing and trial on the merits where the dispute
encompassed only one factual issue—whether the National Mediation Board had issued a directive
that the parties meet to negotiate in Washington, D.C.); see also Burlington N. R.R.. Co. v. Sheet
Metal Workers’ Int’l Ass’n, 636 F. Supp. 809, 811 (N.D. Ill. 1986) (finding that party would not be
prejudiced by advancing preliminary injunction hearing to trial on the merits where the limited
issue in case was whether dispute over temporary work assignment was major or minor under the
RLA). Accordingly, for the reasons articulated in section I, supra, the Court finds in favor of Belt
Railway on its complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that this is a minor dispute and against
SMART-TD on its counterclaim for a determination that this is a major dispute.
CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons, Belt Railway’s motion for preliminary injunction [13] is
granted and SMART-TD’s motion for preliminary injunction [29] is denied. The Court finds this
to be a minor dispute, subject to jurisdiction of the National Railroad Adjustment Board.

Dated: March 26, 2024

ENTERED:

____________________________
LaShonda A. Hunt
United States District Judge

21